Elaheh (Ella) Aiaseh

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated May 15, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's family law appeal and the respondent's cross-appeal, the respondent sought full indemnity costs of $40,872.55.

The appellant argued for costs of $7,500.00.

The court found the respondent was the successful party but declined to award full indemnity costs, finding the appellant's conduct did not warrant it.

The court reduced the hours claimed for preparation and non-appeal related work, awarding the respondent partial indemnity costs of $16,376.70.

The appellant father appealed a trial decision granting sole custody of the parties' child to the respondent mother and ordering him to pay child support based on an imputed income of $420,000.

The mother cross-appealed, seeking to impute an even higher income to the father.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's best interests analysis for sole custody.

The court also upheld the imputation of income, noting the father's failure to provide adequate financial disclosure regarding his solely-owned business and the significant discrepancy between his reported income and his lifestyle and expenditures.

The applicant father sought custody, access, and various financial claims, while the respondent mother sought custody, child support, spousal support, and equalization.

The court maintained sole custody with the mother and established a new access schedule for the father, including alternate weekend and weekday access with specific pickup/drop-off arrangements.

The father's income was imputed at $45,000 annually for support purposes, leading to orders for ongoing child and spousal support.

Claims for retroactive child support, retroactive spousal support, equalization, and a post-separation claim were dismissed due to insufficient evidence or potential undue hardship.

A non-removal order was issued, requiring the father to provide the children's Iranian passports to the mother and restricting his ability to remove the children from Ontario.